Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Butler

• Decision Date: 20 September 1910
• Docket Number: 2,271.
• Citation: 68 S.E. 956,8 Ga.App. 243
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. BUTLER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

68 S.E. 956

8 Ga.App. 243

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. BUTLER.

No. 2,271.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

September 20, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in refusing to award a nonsuit. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the plaintiff's injury was attributable to the negligent act of a person in the employment of the railroad company which would raise the statutory presumption of negligence on the part of the company. Civ. Code 1895, § 2321.

Even if there had been no statutory presumption of negligence, it would have been proper for the court to have submitted to the jury the circumstance that the instrument which caused the plaintiff's injury was in the control and under the management of the defendant, and to have allowed the jury to determine, from the circumstances under which the casualty occurred, whether the defendant had satisfactorily explained the occurrence and rebutted the inference of negligence arising from the event, if, indeed, negligence could be inferred from the nature of the occurrence. In any case where the inference of negligence may as well be drawn as the inference that the casualty resulted from accident, it is error to award a nonsuit. Even if the explosion of a tank used to hold Pintsch gas is not such an unusual occurrence as to support the inference that an injury resultant from the explosion was due to the negligence of the defendant's servants having the tank in charge and engaged in repairing it, the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff showed that he was himself free from fault, and that the injury was inflicted upon him by the acts of others in the employment of the defendant railroad company. This raised the presumption that the defendant was negligent in the respects alleged in the petition, and presented a prima facie case, which was properly submitted to the jury.

Error from City Court of Savannah; Davis Freeman, Judge.

Action by Charlie Butler against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Lawton & Cunningham, for plaintiff in error.

Osborne & Lawrence, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL J. (after stating the facts as above).

We think it would have been error to have nonsuited the plaintiff. We are clearly of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to show that he received his injury at the hands of a person in the employment of the defendant. There...